AMD Versus Intel: Different Paths, Same Goals

Looking over all the various chip announcements in the past week, I'm struck by the big differences in the ways that AMD and Intel are approaching their upcoming chips, both for servers and for desktops.
Both companies want their chips to be faster and more power efficient both will be creating six core desktop chips this year, and both will be integrating graphics into their mainstream desktop and mobile processors. But AMD seems to be talking more about efficiencies within individual processor cores, while Intel is emphasizing multi-threading and additional features built into the chips.

Both companies want their chips to be faster and more power efficient, both will be creating six core desktop chips this year, and both will be integrating graphics into their mainstream desktop and mobile processors. But AMD seems to be talking more about efficiencies within individual processor cores, while Intel is emphasizing multi-threading and additional features built into the chips.

Of course, Intel has always emphasized its lead in process technology: the ability to produce transistors on ever-smaller nodes, such as its current shipment of 32nm processors. But AMD, which spun off its chip-making unit to form Global Foundries last year, takes pains to show that its technology (developed in partnership with IBM's fab group) is keeping up. AMD is expected to sample its first 32nm processors at the end of the year and to ship them in volume in early 2011.

The biggest news this week was AMD's unveiling of a lot of new features for its upcoming Fusion processor, known as "Llano." This will be a 32nm chip with four CPU cores plus integrated graphics, originally targeted at mainstream laptops.

AMD has been talking about a Fusion processor, which it now calls an accelerated processing unit (APU), since its acquisition of ATI several years ago. Within the processor, each of the CPU cores is said to be similar to the core in the company's existing Phenom II processors (as opposed to the new Bulldozer and Bobcat cores the company is also developing.)

Each of these cores will have 35 million transistors with 1MB of Level 2 cache and will measure slightly less than 10 mm, not counting the cache, although AMD did not give specific numbers for the chip as a whole. The graphics are Direct X 11-compatible, designed for both gaming and Blu-ray playback. The chip is expected to run at speeds up to above 3 GHz.

In its technology talks, AMD emphasized core power gating, which
disconnects power going to unused cores; a new technique for better
measuring power consumption and thus managing performance per watt; and
new ways of managing the clock signal, which should also save power use.

In
contrast, Intel of course, is already selling a 32nm mainstream
processor for laptops in its Westmere generation, known as Core i3 and
Core i5. (I tested a retail unit recently and found improved performance, but equivalent battery life, compared with the previous generation of Intel processors.)

This
processor combines a 32nm dual-core, four-thread CPU die with a 45nm
integrated graphics die and should represent Intel's mainstream product
for at least the remainder of the year. Intel's ISSCC talk focused on
how it can control power on both the "core" and the "uncore" parts of
the chip, including power gates for different parts of the chip and its
cache. The chip also has Turbo Boost (which can speed up one core when
others aren't being used), which is now being extended to the graphics
on the mobile chip;

For next year, Intel has talked a little
about a new 32nm architecture called Sandy Bridge that might also
include variants with the graphics on-die, but it hasn't given much
detail on that.

So both companies are talking about power
management, but for now, Intel seems to have more advanced features (it
is shipping 32nm and multithreading), while AMD has emphasized price performance and given much more detail about its 2011 "fusion" products.

Both companies will also have six core desktop chips
out in the next few months. Both Intel's Gulftown, likely to be called
Core i7, and AMD's Thuban, probably a Phenom II X6, are similar in
design to the company's server designs. Being aimed at higher-end
desktops, they are designed to be used in conjunction with a discrete
graphics solution.

Here Intel seems to have a bit of an edge,
offering both later technology (32 nm versus 45 nm) and
multi-threading. But it will be interesting to see if AMD can do
lower-power versions of the six-core chip, which may make it work in
more situations.

This
is a 32nm chip with six cores and 12 threads, along with 12MB of Level
3 cache and1.17 billion transistors. In contrast, the existing
Nehalem-EP, sold as the Xeon 5000 series, has 4 cores, 8 threads, and
8MB of Level 3 cache, with 731 billion transistors. Yet the new chip
measures 240 square millimeters, while the old one measures 262 square
millimeters, and has the same power draw. That's the advantage of
Moore's Law. Intel is also slated to follow its existing 45nm six-core
Dunnington Xeon 7400 chip with a 45-nm, 8-core, 16-thread chip known as
Nehalem-EX, which is expected to ship to customers later this quarter.

AMD
didn't get much server-related attention at ISSCC, but the big server
update for this year is a six-core 45nm chip known as Lisbon, which is
an update of the existing Istanbul chip. Although this chip doesn't
support multi-threading, it will also be out in a dual-die version
calledMagny-Cours" for two and four-socket servers, both likely under
the Opteron name.

Both companies have ways of shutting down
some cores to boost others when necessary and are always working on new
ways of reducing power draw. But Intel is emphasizing its more advanced
process, larger cache, and multi-threading, while AMD has more total
cores and is emphasizing performance per watt. Back to top

Michael J. Miller's Forward Thinking Blog: forwardthinking.pcmag.com
Michael J. Miller is chief information officer at Ziff Brothers Investments, a private investment firm. From 1991 to 2005, Miller was editor-in-chief of PC Magazine, responsible for the editorial direction, quality and presentation of the world's largest computer publication.
Until late 2006, Miller was the Chief Content Officer for Ziff Davis Media, responsible for overseeing the editorial positions of Ziff Davis's magazines, websites, and events. As Editorial Director for Ziff Davis Publishing since 1997, Miller took an active role in...
More »